Maybe it reflects the different mix of properties but it's interesting to note that the value of the Duchy of Cornwall rose while the value of the Crown Estate fell.

It is well reported that the Duchy of Cornwall actively manages its proporty portfolio, and has "traded" very actively over the last few years. By comparison with the Crown Estate, it may be possible to draw the conclusion that perhaps it may have been better managed.

That said, the difference in "performance" may also be due to the mix of properties held as Warren has pointed out. My understanding is that the CE holds vast retail interests (eg Regent St freehold) which are probably worse hit than other types of property.

The value of the Queen’s private estate has fallen by almost a fifth due to the impact of the recession.
The Duchy of Lancaster - a portfolio of land, property and assets held in trust for the Sovereign - saw its value drop by £75million to £322million in the 2008-9 financial year.
But the income the Monarchy received from the Duchy, which is used to fund her public and private activities, increased by 5.4 per cent from £12.6million to £13.3millio

So how much is that in US Currency is he or will he ever be on Civil List, how much do the Army Pay him? sorry if the questions seem silly

The only way he will be on the Civil List is if he becomes King.

The only people on the Civil List now are the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh (other members of the Queen's family, who were on the Civil List before they changed things in the early 90s get money from the government BUT the Queen then repays that money so that now it is only the monarch and consort).

Charles, as Duke of Cornwall, has the income of the Duchy of Cornwall to support him, his wife and his sons. On his accession that income will pass automatically to William, who will instantly become Duke of Cornwall when his father becomes King. Charles will then have the income of the Duchy of Lancaster to provide his personal income and that money will be used to continue to support his siblings, cousins and Harry (I don't think he would turn around to say the elderly Duke of Kent and say 'sorry I am not giving you anything to live on' but support for the descendents won't be happening and they will have to work for themselves).

Angry villagers have won a battle against the Royal estate which planned to turn their homes into a second 'model village'.
The Duchy of Lancaster, which helps fund the monarchy, drew up detailed plans to turn picturesque Cloughton in North Yorkshire into another Poundbury, Prince Charles' controversial building project in Dorset.

As it seems that the British people don't want to pay for a Head of State who gets the position through birth just when do you think Britain will become a Republic?

The apparent sarcasm is misplaced and I have no idea if or when Britain might become a republic, I don't possess a crystal ball!

Unlike Australians, (or so one might believe from reading comments from Australians regarding the matter on these threads), I would suggest that the majority of people in the UK do not know what a Head of State is or does.

This is only my opinion from conversations with a wide range of native English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish people from a variety of backgrounds.

I have no wish to see the demise of the monarchy, I do believe they must be seen to manage the money they get, in a better way. Although their household staff may not be the best paid, I feel it is time for them to remove some of the managers, who pass the work required on to friends of friends, whose companies they know, rather than looking for competitive tenders. As it is, those that are asked to tender seem to think it is acceptable to add a couple of noughts to any quote.

Well, certainly Diana and Sarah did not. It's not a usual requirement of marriage to a member of the royal family, but perhaps this will change in light of divorce becoming more common these days.

Also, most of the wealth in the royal family belongs to the Sovereign, followed by The Prince of Wales as they receive the income from the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. Everyone else is basically dependent on whatever money they may have inherited along the way, which usually is relatively modest.

William and Harry are very wealthy, but most of their inheritance came from The Queen's pocket when Diana received her divorce settlement.

Yes that is true, most of the wealth of that family is held by the monarch. And not the other members of the royal family. And even though the monarch may hold monies in her private capacity it is still protected from suit and someone trying to get it through divorce. A monarch is exempt from any type of legal jurisdiction. A monarch is always above the law. If Prince Philip divorced the Queen right at this moment. The Queen is protected against such things by law. He would only get what she wanted to give him. A judge could not MAKE her do anything. It is her government that the Prime Minister is the head of. They government can not make the Queen do anything. Prenuptial's and things of that nature aren't normally thought about when it comes to the sovereign. Although other members of the royal family can be sued at a time of divorce!

I personally think that the Queen and the members of the royal family should be dethroned. For the simple fact that they get money for doing nothing. I would have NO PROBLEM doing hundreds of engagements over a years time and get paid large sums of money to do them. It is not that HARD. As some royalists like to put it. They are just defending this institution which has been draining the British tax payers dry.

People use that sorry excuse saying that, The Queen turns over revenue from the Crown Estate which doubles that of the civil list. So the tax payers are getting a good deal. When in reality the tax payers would be getting that money even if this were a republic. The Crown Estate belongs to that of the state. And not private property of the Queen. How can she turn over something that doesn't belong to her in the first place. What belongs to her is the Duchy of Lancaster. She doesn't own anything other than that, and people need to realize that. The Queen is siting there getting large sums of money when you can have a president that costs much less like in Germany. AND DON'T GIVE ME THAT PRESIDENTS COST MORE EXCUSE. I have went online and researched some republics that have cheap presidents unlike the U.S. Britain can have the same. They just need to get rid of that family.

Now I would be all for keeping the monarchy if she turned over money from her own wallet to cover the costs (Duchy of Lancaster). [WHICH I DOUBT SHE WILL EVER DO] Then I will be for keeping the monarchy. They need to pay for themselves.

Or do what the Zulu King is trying to do in South Africa. His government is starting a private trust for him. Which will cover his civil list (private expenses) and the cost of running the Zulu Kingdom (palaces and such not owned by the King) in the South African Republic. So the taxpayer will no longer have the burden. This is a concept the British should think about!